Resolving Right: Regulatory Disputes Management
- Shiv Martin
- Apr 23
- 6 min read
Table of Contents Introduction The Risks of Neglecting Dispute Resolution Functions How ADR Fits into a Regulator’s Role Why Prioritise Dispute Resolution? Strategic Recommendations for Implementation Final Thoughts
In an era marked by heightened public scrutiny, rapid technological disruption, and evolving stakeholder expectations, Ombudsman and Commission-based regulators face increasing pressure to remain responsive, credible, and effective. Against this backdrop, robust dispute resolution frameworks, well-defined processes, and skilled practitioner expertise—particularly in early resolution and conciliation—have become essential components of modern regulatory success. These mechanisms are not auxiliary supports; they are integral regulatory success.
Dispute resolution plays a central role in upholding the fundamental principles of regulatory governance: fairness, accountability, transparency, and efficiency. It is not merely a tool for handling individual complaints. It is a strategic instrument that enhances institutional integrity, strengthens stakeholder relationships, and improves the overall effectiveness and adaptability of regulatory systems. For regulators tasked with handling complaints at scale, such as Ombudsman offices and public commissions, conciliation in particular offers a proportionate, accessible, and fair model for dispute resolution.
As a nationally recognised conciliation trainer and consultant working with public sector organisations across Australia and New Zealand, I’ve seen firsthand how tailored conciliation systems build trust, improve compliance outcomes, and deliver operational value. For decision makers in regulatory agencies, the call to action is clear. Without clear, accessible, and impartial pathways for resolving disputes, agencies risk losing stakeholder confidence, eroding compliance, and weakening their legitimacy. In a fast-changing regulatory landscape, dispute resolution capability is not just good practice—it is essential to operational resilience and public trust.
The Risks of Neglecting Dispute Resolution Functions
Neglecting dispute resolution frameworks presents serious risks to regulatory organisations, including diminished consumer trust and increased harm to individuals, businesses, and communities. In the absence of fair, timely, and accessible dispute resolution pathways, grievances often go unresolved, leading to frustration, financial hardship, and disengagement from regulatory systems. These risks are particularly acute in sectors such as finance, energy, healthcare, and housing, where the stakes for affected individuals can be profound.
The consequences extend beyond the immediate parties. Ineffective or absent dispute resolution systems prevent regulators from identifying patterns of misconduct or broader systemic risks. Without this critical feedback loop, early warning signs of instability or non-compliance may go undetected. Escalated disputes may result in unnecessary litigation, increased operational costs, reputational damage, and legal exposure. Moreover, weak resolution pathways diminish incentives for voluntary compliance and undermine the deterrent value of the regulatory framework.
Importantly, dispute resolution data and trends can be harnessed to inform policy development and improve regulatory responsiveness. Regulators who fail to capture and use these insights miss valuable opportunities to enhance equity, efficiency, and legitimacy in service delivery. In short, failing to invest in dispute resolution—notably the development of effective conciliation processes—not only constrains effectiveness, it limits a regulator’s ability to lead, adapt, and respond to the evolving needs of the communities they serve.
How ADR Fits into a Regulator’s Role
1. A Tool for Enforcing Compliance and Resolving Disputes
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)—through mediation, conciliation, early resolution, or ombuds-style interventions—provides structured yet flexible pathways for resolving disputes without the need for formal enforcement or litigation. For regulators, these methods support:
Ensuring regulated entities meet legal and service standards (e.g., financial or energy sector complaints)
Upholding procedural fairness in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions
Offering proportionate and accessible options for redress before formal escalation
Conciliation, in particular, is a model well suited to regulatory contexts involving statutory frameworks and ongoing relationships. ADR methods are embedded in the practice of several Australian regulators including ASIC, the ACCC, and the ATO, where they support behavioural change, preserve relationships, and reduce the costs associated with adversarial proceedings.
2. An Instrument for Good Regulatory Governance
ADR processes uphold the core values of regulatory stewardship: transparency, accountability, independence, and responsiveness. When embedded within internal and external dispute resolution systems, ADR allows regulators to:
Resolve disputes independently and impartially
Provide timely, accessible remedies, especially for vulnerable or underrepresented parties
Minimise the burden on courts and tribunals, aligning with broader access to justice reforms
When incorporated into decision review processes, ADR—especially structured conciliation—strengthens procedural integrity and enhances the defensibility of regulatory decisions. It also reduces the likelihood of judicial review or formal appeals.
3. A Feedback Loop for Regulatory Design and Risk Management
Dispute resolution generates valuable data and insights that can improve systemic oversight and guide proactive risk management. Recurring dispute themes can signal:
Gaps in regulatory design or enforcement
Unintended impacts of existing policies or licensing arrangements
Sector-wide behavioural trends requiring strategic intervention
Embedding dispute resolution into agency operations allows regulators to move beyond case-by-case handling and toward holistic system improvement. As a conciliation consultant, I regularly work with Ombudsman and Commission teams to capture this intelligence and translate it into targeted reforms.
Why Prioritise Dispute Resolution?
✅ Cost Efficiency: Early resolution reduces reliance on costly legal or adversarial pathways.
✅ Improved Productivity: Efficient dispute management preserves resources for core regulatory work.
✅ Enhanced Stakeholder Trust: Fair, transparent processes strengthen legitimacy and stakeholder engagement.
✅ Identification of Systemic Issues: Dispute trends expose broader compliance or design weaknesses.
✅ Reinforcement of Fairness: Neutral dispute processes uphold procedural justice.
✅ Conflict De-escalation: Early interventions reduce the potential for reputational damage and public backlash.
✅ Confidentiality: Mediation and conciliation often allow for private, sensitive matters to be resolved discreetly.
✅ Compliance Support: ADR encourages proactive cooperation from regulated entities.
✅ Relationship Building: ADR fosters constructive dialogue and long-term trust.
✅ Flexibility: ADR adapts to a range of contexts, from technical disputes to consumer protection matters.
Strategic Recommendations for Implementation
To integrate dispute resolution meaningfully into regulatory practice, agencies should:
Develop and publish clear internal policies on complaints handling and dispute escalation
Provide dispute resolution and communication training for staff, with a strong emphasis on conciliation methods
Engage independent conciliators and facilitators for complex or sensitive matters requiring impartial intervention
Build early resolution mechanisms to prevent conflict escalation
Use dispute data to inform policy design, education campaigns, and enforcement strategies
Establish strong internal-external feedback loops between dispute resolution teams and policy or compliance units
Final Thoughts
Dispute resolution is far more than an administrative function—it is a powerful tool for enhancing the quality, fairness, and impact of regulatory practice. In an increasingly complex, contested, and interconnected regulatory landscape, strengthening dispute resolution capacity—particularly in conciliation—is essential to ensuring integrity, responsiveness, and resilience across the system.
If you’re a leader in an Ombudsman office, Commission, or other regulatory body looking to embed best-practice dispute resolution—especially conciliation—into your policy, enforcement, or compliance framework, I can help. As a national trainer and consultant in conciliation for regulators, I offer tailored coaching, workshops, and program design. Visit www.shivmartin.com or email me at contact@shivmartin.com to book a consultation or request a proposal.
References
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). (2022). Regulatory guide 271: Internal dispute resolution. Retrieved from https://asic.gov.au
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). (2021). Consumer complaints data and insights. Retrieved from https://www.fca.org.uk
Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. (2019). Final report: Volume 1. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). Consumer dispute resolution and redress in the digital age. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE). (2019). Dispute resolution: Best practice framework. https://www.mbie.govt.nz
European Commission. (2017). EU dispute resolution mechanisms for tax disputes. https://ec.europa.eu
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (n.d.). Collaborative problem solving: Better and streamlined outcomes. https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov
Australian Treasury. (2015). Key practices for industry-based customer dispute resolution. https://treasury.gov.au
NSW Fair Trading. (n.d.). Consumer guarantee directions. https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). (n.d.). Alternative dispute resolution handbook. https://www.opm.gov
Fair Work Ombudsman. (2025). Effective dispute resolution: Best practice guide. https://www.fairwork.gov.au
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why is conciliation well suited to regulatory environments? Because it blends flexibility with statutory alignment—supporting fair, proportionate outcomes within formal governance frameworks.
2. What’s the difference between mediation and conciliation in this context? Conciliation includes a more active role by the facilitator and often occurs within statutory schemes, while mediation is typically more neutral and voluntary.
3. Can ADR replace formal enforcement? Not always—but it can reduce the need for it by resolving issues early, improving compliance, and restoring trust.
4. What sectors benefit most from robust dispute resolution frameworks? High-stakes sectors like finance, healthcare, energy, housing, and education see the biggest impact—but all regulators benefit from stronger resolution pathways.
5. Do you offer support in designing dispute resolution frameworks for regulators? Yes. I provide consulting, training, and customised program development for conciliation and dispute resolution systems across Australia and NZ.👉 Let’s connect
Read Next
Shiv Martin is a nationally accredited mediator, practicing solicitor, conciliator, decision-maker, and certified vocational trainer. With extensive experience in complex dispute resolution, stakeholder engagement, and team building across business, community, and governmental sectors, Shiv brings over a decade of unique and diverse expertise in Law, Management, Vocational Education, and Mediation.
Comentários